Novotny v Moore - MD "sensitive" places

[Euler]

Novotny et al. challenged MD's bans on legal carry of firearms in government buildings, public transportation, school grounds, within 1000 feet of a public demonstration, state parks, museums, healthcare facilities, stadiums, racetracks, amusement parks, casinos, locations that sell alcohol, and private property held open to the public.

The district court upheld all bans, except for within 1000 feet of a public demonstration, locations that sell alcohol, and private property held open to the public, citing the upheld places are sensitive. The appellate court overturned and reinstated the ban within 1000 feet of a public demonstration and in locations that sell alcohol.

Plaintiffs wish to petition the US Supreme Court regarding all but the injunction against the ban on private property held open to the public. (MD is separately petitioning to overturn the successful injunction in Moore v Kipke.)

In other words, each side is petitioning to reverse the part it lost.

On April 10, Novotny asked the Court to extend the deadline to file a petition. (shadow docket)

On April 16, the Court granted an extension to May 20.

Edited May 16, 2026 at 01:14 AM by Euler

[EdDinIL]

 

 

Petition (265 pages long):  https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Novotny-cert-petition-5.20.26.pdf 

 

[EdDinIL]

For those not on Twitter/X, here's the full text of SAF's tweet/post:

 

SAF, FPC, Maryland Shall Issue and individual plaintiffs just filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to take up Novotny v. Moore and strike down Maryland’s web of carry bans — stores, gas stations, parks, transit, demonstrations, healthcare facilities, places of amusement, and the default ‘no guns on private property open to the public’ rule. The 4th Circuit upheld most of it. This case is the perfect vehicle to clarify what ‘sensitive places’ actually means under Bruen.

[Euler]

On May 29, the Court created a new docket for this case, but has not yet added the petition.

The new docket for this case refers to the existing docket for Moore v Kipke, suggesting that the Court intends to combine them.

Edited May 31, 2026 at 09:44 AM by Euler

[Euler]

I'm not sure when the petition was added to the new docket, but it was mistakenly backdated to April 15 (the original due date, which is impossible since the docket wasn't created until May 29.).

The document properties show that the petition PDF was generated on May 30, with the original Word document dated May 20.

Whatever. It's there now. The response is due June 29.